With the passing of Fidel Castro, our divisive system of ultra-conservative vs. ultra-liberal is overshadowing the potential economic and social benefits of a post-Castro regime.

On one hand, we have the off-the-wall liberals screaming about how, because of Castro, Cuba has a nearly 100% literacy rate. Never mind the fact that in Cuba, the government, not the literate individual, gets to choose what you can and cannot read. How disgustingly ironic!

And on the other hand, we have the off-the-wall conservatives screaming about all the human rights violations that have resulted from Castro’s leadership, yet saying nothing about the human rights violations on our own soil that have resulted from the war on drugs and the Patriot Act.

But one thing is certain: No matter which side of the aisle you call home or which political ideology you embrace, there is no question that Fidel Castro was one of the most brutal dictators in recorded history.

And rest assured, dear reader, if you intend to defend the actions of Fidel Castro to me, I will treat your comments with the same respect that I treat a piece of used toilet paper. I have no patience for those who wish to justify the actions of murderous dictators.

I do, however, have much interest in watching and hopefully benefitting from the transition of Cuba’s failed communist experiment to a free market economy where people are rewarded for entrepreneurship, not imprisoned for it.

The Seeds of Capitalism

I have little doubt that not only have the seeds of capitalism been planted in Cuba, but the will of the people has also been strengthened. Of course, some question that will.

In fact, the other day, I saw a comment on a message board that asked the question, “Why are the people of Cuba not dancing in the streets?”

Well, after nearly 50 years of communist rule, where speaking out against the government resulted in jail time, it’s understandable that the good people of Cuba are not racing out in public to celebrate the death of Fidel Castro.

I suspect there’s still plenty of fear permeating through the streets of Havana.

But rest assured, dear reader, those streets are also buzzing with people who are likely breathing a huge sigh of relief.

Taking Capitalism for Granted

As much as I loathed Fidel Castro, I equally loathed the U.S. politicians who refused to do business with Cuba by supporting economic sanctions.

Refusing to do business with Cuba while under the rule of a murderous dictator does nothing to hurt that dictator. In fact, in the case of Fidel Castro, it empowered him.

The truth is, by refusing to do business with Cuba, we were actually hurting the people of Cuba. The people who could’ve benefitted immensely from regular access to certain medications and building supplies.

By refusing to do business with Cuba, we also made it difficult for U.S. companies that could’ve profited handsomely from exporting all kinds of things to the island.

The bottom line is that economic sanctions against Cuba did nothing but strengthen a dictator and weaken the resolve of the Cuban people.

I think Congressman Ron Paul said it best when he opined on U.S. policy towards Cuba:

I oppose economic sanctions for two very simple reasons. First, they don’t work as effective foreign policy. Time after time, from Cuba to China to Iraq, we have failed to unseat despotic leaders by refusing to trade with the people of those nations. If anything, the anti- American sentiment aroused by sanctions often strengthens the popularity of such leaders, who use America as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from their own tyranny. History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked — when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies.

Of course, with Fidel Castro out of the picture, a new road to liberty may soon be possible for the people of Cuba.

I don’t suspect it’ll happen fast or without plenty of hiccups, but with certain barriers out of the way, it is now possible for the basic fundamentals of capitalism to do what they do best: enable wealth and prosperity for all who are willing to work for it.

For many of us, we sometimes take capitalism for granted.

For many of us, we’ve always lived in a world where capitalism has allowed us to build wealth and provide for our families. It really is a beautiful thing, and as a reader of Wealth Daily, you understand this.

I just hope you’re taking full advantage of all the opportunities you have at this very moment to build and protect your wealth.

Determination and patience have paid off for Hadley Middle School students and staff.

On Monday (Nov. 28), the Hadley Student Council officially opened the school’s Reading Gazebo with a ribbon cutting ceremony. It took nearly four years to complete the project.

“Today, we celebrate another milestone in our program to create an outdoor reading and learning center for Hadley students,” student council members told a group of administrators as they gathered at the gazebo for a ribbon cutting ceremony.

The metal roof gazebo, with its three mesh picnic tables, was added near the school playground, giving students a place to read during recess and gather for classroom activities.

The project began four years ago when student leaders approached then Hadley Principal Kathleen Robinson with a plan to improve Hadley’s recess area by improving the surface area, adding new games and equipment for students, and building a reading and learning area.

While the district was able to resurface the area and add a few new games for student enjoyment, it lacked the funds to create the outdoor reading and learning center.

Determined to see their outdoor space come to fruition, students began raising money for the gazebo and picnic tables by conducting an annual “Pennies from Hadley” competition and other fundraising efforts to support their goal.

Their efforts continued each year — even when council membership changed with each graduating class.

So impressed by the students’ ongoing commitment, the Hadley PTO and district administration decided to assist and help make the dream a reality.

“I am happy to see the pavilion finished,” said Robinson, who now serves as the district’s assistant superintendent for instruction. “You finally have your outdoor space.”

She went on to explain how the Reading Gazebo will serve as a classroom extension, enabling groups of students to use it for outdoor reading, science experiments or STEAM classes.

“I can’t wait to see you in here using the space,” she added.

Students thanked the district’s buildings and grounds department for making their vision come to life, using their knowledge and skills to create specifications for the site, ordering the appropriate materials and installing them.

“Without them, the reading pavilion would not exist,” said Hadley Middle School teacher and student council sponsor Alison Pikus.

Principal Kristen Schroeder congratulated students for their perseverance and team effort.

“This is what can happen when a group of people come together and work as a team,” she said.

But should House Democrats elect Madigan as speaker of the House for the 17th time in January 2017, he’ll be in the national record books as well: No one in modern American history will have held a Statehouse speakership for longer.

By the end of that two-year term, Madigan will have served as Illinois House Speaker for a total of 34 years.

South Carolina’s Solomon Blatt is the longest known House speaker in U.S. history, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. He served a total of 33 years in that position, from 1937 to 1946 and 1951 to 1973.

Tom Murphy of Georgia holds the record for the longest consecutive stretch as House speaker, serving from 1973 to 2002 in the Peach State.

It’s difficult to know whether any 18th or 19th century politicians bested those marks, but it’s improbable to say the least.

“We simply do not know for certain that there were not longer serving speakers in the 1700s and 1800s,” NCSL researcher Tim Storey told the Washington Times in 2014. “It is very unlikely that there were, because legislators and leaders did not generally serve nearly as long then as they do today.”

He is also the most disliked politician in Illinois – nearly two-thirds of voters disapprove of Madigan. And despite drawing the legislative map, he’s fresh off a loss of his supermajority in the House, losing four Democrat seats on net.

But the speaker seems confident in the vote he needs most to maintain an iron grip on Springfield.

“As you probably know I’ve been talking to the Democratic members of the House and I have overwhelming support to be re-elected as the speaker,” Madigan told reporters after a Nov. 28 legislative leaders meeting.

Perhaps his confidence is warranted. After all, there is not a single sitting House Democrat who has ever voted for someone other than Madigan for the speakership (setting aside the 1995 vote, when Republicans controlled the chamber.)

But some Democrat House members seem uncomfortable with their vote.

According to political columnist Rich Miller, state Reps. Will Guzzardi, D-Chicago, and Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, want to meet with Madigan to address their concerns before committing to vote for his re-election as House speaker.

State Rep.-elect Katie Stuart, D-Glen Carbon, gave an awkward answer when questioned about the first vote she will take as a state representative.

“I don’t know what the options will be,” Stuart told the Illinois News Network. “You’re asking me a hypothetical question just like I wouldn’t tell you how I would vote on any piece of legislation until I actually read the legislation.”

Of course, a Madigan speakership is far from hypothetical. For many Illinoisans it’s all too real.

The state’s dire straights could change what was once the easiest and most obvious vote for House Democrats – Madigan for speaker – into one of the most contentious of the upcoming legislative session.

Anyone paying the least bit of attention to Illinois government knows the state is a fiscal mess, and the ongoing drama being played out between our Republican governor and Democrat General Assembly is like a long-running TV soap opera.

The news of the day is that Rich Miller’s Capitol Fax is reporting that the passing of a tax increase during the current lame duck session is now not going to happen.

For those unfamiliar with Capitol Fax, it is in some ways to Illinois politics what the Drudge Report is nationally. While Drudge is a conservative, both sides can benefit by visiting his website. While Rich Miller is a liberal, it’s one of the best sources for good information on what’s going on in dreary Springfield.

Now that the possibility of a tax hike passing with the help of “16 lame duck” legislators is not going to happen, Republicans cheer and Democrats lament, right? Not necessarily.

According to our state’s constitution, the governor has a lot of power when it comes to preparing the state’s budget, and, in fact, is constitutionally bound to present a balanced budget every year. Long-time Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan has no such constitutional requirement.

Several Republican Illinois legislators have long assumed that Bruce Rauner would willingly sign a tax increase as part of a budget deal with Madigan. Those aren’t the headlines Rauner wants going into 2018’s gubernatorial election, however, so a super-majority Democrat controlled General Assembly doing the dirty work without the need of his assistance would have been ideal. And, of course,

Democrats raising taxes again supplies a terrific weapon for all Republican campaigns.

Except that now, as Rich Miller reports, the Democrats won’t be doing Rauner that favor. So it’s back to the status quo, which really isn’t the status quo in that the numbers don’t stay the same, they continue to get worse.

Neither party has offered an honestly balanced budget in many years, and Governor Rauner, as chief executive, might possibly be blamed for the little things — here are just a few facts from the Illinois Policy Institute article “Illinois’ $204B Debt Crowding Out Payment for Social Services” (we have put them into bullet points for easy reading):

Illinois will spend $1 billion more on annual debt payments than it will on human services in fiscal year 2017.

Social service agencies in Illinois, such as The Center for Youth and Family Solutions, on average wait almost a year to get paid for the services they provide to the state’s low-income families, disabled and seniors. Many agencies have closed their doors, unable to pay their employees and rent.

Illinois is sitting on a mountain of debt worth $204 billion.

Illinois spends so much on debt that those costs now consume almost 18 percent of the state’s general fund budget.

Illinois’ backlog of unpaid bills is what often gets the most public attention. While significant – the money due to vendors reached $9 billion in November – it only makes up a small part of Illinois’ total debt.

The real burden lies in Illinois’ $28 billion in bonds and its $111 billion unfunded pension liability. The $139 billion total is double what it was just 15 years ago.

Combined, these debts all add up to $204 billion. And that’s the rosy scenario. If more realistic investment-return assumptions are used, Illinois’ pension debt nearly doubles.

Unfortunately, the state has just $79 billion in assets to meet its $190 billion obligation, leaving a $111 billion hole for taxpayers to pick up.

So is raising taxes a solution? Fiscal conservatives understand the answer is “no” — the Illinois Policy Institute’s Ted Dabrowski recently laid out the ABC’s:

For many, tax hikes look like the only solution to Illinois’ fiscal woes. But tax hikes will only make things worse. Illinoisans are already burdened with some of the highest taxes in the nation, including the highest property taxes of any state.

As a result of Illinois’ dysfunction, the state is bleeding people and its tax base. Between July 2014 and July 2015, approximately 300,000 people left Illinois for good and only 200,000 moved in, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This resulted in a loss of 105,000 residents on net to other states – an all-time high for Illinois. Tax hikes will only chase more residents away.

So what is the solution? Fiscal conservatives understand that, too — again here’s Ted Dabrowski:

The only way to keep Illinoisans here is to bring fiscal sanity back to the state through major spending reforms that bring Illinois’ budget in line with what ordinary Illinoisans can afford.

Fiscal sanity? Spending reforms? Uh, yes, and maybe that’s a nicer way of saying it than the plain truth — which is that

Illinois needs to cut its spending by many billions of dollars if it is to ever make the budget math work.

Since Democrats have no wish to cut spending, and Republicans completely lack the ability to draw up a genuinely balanced budget and then sell it successfully to the people of Illinois, it’s a good bet we’ll just see more of the same. The budget can will be kicked down the road into the 2018 election year when tens of millions of dollars will be spent by each party trying to portray the other side as the villain.

The Illinois GOP has just launched yet another crusade to make Democrat House Speaker Mike Madigan as the chief villain. Here’s a better idea. Since Madigan knows how to win, Republicans should work on converting him into a Republican fiscal conservative. With Madigan’s political and communications skills, Illinois can then get back on the right track. Who knows, with Madigan’s abilities and Illinois’ potential, our state might soon be competing with states like Texas for businesses and experience the growth levels it once enjoyed.

Take ACTION:Click HERE to send an email to your state representative and to Governor Rauner to urge them to do the hard work of cutting the waste and bloat in Illinois government instead of constantly looking for new ways to tax the people.

NOVEMBER 27, 2016

On the same day last week that Donald Trump nominated noted immigration hawk Sen. Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, New York City declared that it would stick to its “sanctuary city” policy—setting up a battle that will likely occupy a lot of national attention during the next Administration. . . .

This is a political fight both sides will relish taking on. Trump got a big boost early in his campaign by shining a spotlight on the murder of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco. The murderer had previously been detained by the San Francisco police, but under SF’s sanctuary city policy—which is more militant than New York’s—the city refused to honor a request from the federal government to transfer him, and instead released him. This was a story to which Trump returned throughout his campaign.

Furthermore, as I wrote on Friday, the nomination of Sen. Sessions as AG likely signals that the Trump Administration will seek first and foremost to fulfill his campaign promise of a more hawkish line on immigration through the enforcement of existing laws against criminal illegal aliens. Unlike previous Attorneys General, Sessions will presumably not hesitate to use the full range of remedies, including financial and legal sanctions, available to the federal government to compel cooperation from reluctant municipalities. And it helps Trump’s populist brand to pick fights with New York City liberals who want to protect illegal immigrants in disregard of the law.

For their part, de Blasio and other leaders of deep-blue cities also have strong incentives not to back down. Again, this will partly be a matter of politics: fighting Trump plays as well with de Blasio’s constituents in NYC as fighting de Blasio does with Trump’s backers in the heartlands. But there are other considerations. Right now the NYC policy is not to call the feds about a suspect’s immigration status until the the person is convicted, while federal policy technically requires the local cops to call the feds as soon as they find out someone is here illegally. Cities with large illegal immigrant policies, like New York, feel that such a policy will deter its residents from cooperating with the police or calling emergency services.

Such a fight will galvanize public opinion on each side. The Jacksonians will see only flagrant disregard for law and order; for historical reasons, many in the south will also be angered by what they’ll perceive as deeply hypocritical flouting of federal authority. . . .

But the law will not be on de Blasio’s side. And it is a deep principle of American history that the state and local authorities not be allowed to override or nullify federal law. This is a point that liberals reaffirmed with particular vehemence on the immigration front as recently as a few years ago, when arguing (successfully) that Arizona’s immigration laws were preempted by federal policy.

As we’ve been writing around here, Donald Trump is the most purely Jacksonian character to win the White House since possibly Andrew Jackson himself. And now he may have a nullification crisis on his hands. I can’t imagine Bill de Blasio ever dreamed he would wind up as the heir to John C. Calhoun—but he just might.

Technically, states’ refusal to cooperate with a federal regulatory scheme isn’t the same as nullification, and it’s not even illegal unless it violates a condition on federal funding. But these niceties aren’t likely to get much attention.

Texans press Homeland Security to ramp up border flights

Four days after Watchdog reported that a Mexican border surveillance program was being dismantled, three Texas officials pressed the Department of Homeland Security to reverse course.

AP file photo

GET GOING: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wants more aerial surveillance on the border, not less.

“Given the continuing surge of migrants along the southern border … we believe DHS should be requesting more surveillance and security resources, not less,” stated the officials’ letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson on Tuesday. The letter was signed by Gov. Greg Abbott, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.

DHS spokesman Dan Hetlage told Watchdog that flights of Operation Phalanx are “funded through the end of December and [a funding] request is in for next year.”

Hetlage said the 2017 request was made on Nov. 16, two days before the Watchdog story appeared. He did not specify the amount of funding sought.

In their Tuesday letter, Abbott, Cornyn and Cuellar declared, “DHS has not requested any flight hours to support Operation Phalanx for calendar year 2017,” even though the program received “a full appropriation of funds from Congress.”

While disputing Watchdog’s report that DHS was phasing out Phalanx operations in Texas, Hetlage said he could not confirm any current flights, citing security issues.

In a Nov. 20 Tweet, Abbott wrote: “I’ve already sent the Nat’l Guard, 100s more public safety officers, boats, planes, cameras, etc. Texas is doing all it can to do feds’ job.”

Rep. Mike McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement Wednesday:

“We cannot let our guard down on our southern border. … We must continue to utilize National Guard aviation assets to increase situational awareness and operational control of the border until DHS invests in additional aviation capabilities,” the San Antonio Republican stated.

Watch your back, Donald: Hillary contests election results

Hillary has dropped the pretense of being a gracious loser and joined Jill Stein to challenge the election results in Wisconsin. Maybe she talked to Al Gore, another sore loser, about how to “unite the country” and accept the results of the elections.

Chris Wallace kept pestering Trump and other Republicans on whether Trump would accept the results, but Wallace and others never asked Hillary. Wallace and the rest of the media just assumed that Hillary would win.

Mark Erick Elias, counsel to Hillary Clinton, wrote on November 26, 2016:

Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. If Jill Stein follows through as she has promised and pursues recounts in Pennsylvania and Michigan, we will take the same approach in those states as well. We do so fully aware that the number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states – Michigan – well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. But regardless of the potential to change the outcome in any of the states, we feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process itself.

Even though there is no evidence or claim of vote fraud, Stein and Hillary challenge the results in Wisconsin, and probably Pennsylvania and Michigan. But the facts do not matter, because Hillary cannot believe she lost those states. The media told her they were her states.

Trump has 290 E.C. votes, not counting Michigan. If you remove Wisconsin’s 10 votes, Trump still wins, which means that Hillary has to knock out Pennsylvania’s 20 votes. Hillary has to reverse the votes in the Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to win. This will not happen, so why is Hillary challenging the Wisconsin results with Stein?

Stein filed a petition, under oath, with Wisconsin to demand a hand recount. The basis for the petition is an affidavit by J. Alex Halderman, a computer professor at the University of Michigan. The petition is 64 pages. One half is the résumé of Halderman, and the balance is newspaper clippings and press releases by Homeland Security that the 2016 election was subject to foreign hacking.

The affidavit can be summarized as: follows: 1) somebody hacked the emails of the DNC and John Podesta; 2) somebody hacked voter rolls of Arizona and Illinois to obtain information about voters; 3) ABC reported that somebody tried to hack the voter registration of 20 states; without naming the states; and 4) Homeland Security said senior Russian officials commissioned some of these attacks. Therefore, somebody hacked the voting machines to cause Hillary to lose.

There is no evidence to the Russians or anyone else tampered with the elections in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or any other state.

If Hillary expects to win the presidential election, then Stein, backed by Hillary, will have to file the same unfounded petition in Pennsylvania and Michigan. This is the same strategy Algore used: demand a hand recount in the counties where he thought he might pick up votes. The Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the equal protection clause to have hand recounts in only a few counties and not the entire state. By analogy, should we have a hand recount in all fifty states and not just Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, even when there is no evidence that the voting machines were hacked?

We can assume that Hillary and her team of attorneys have been busy the past weeks looking for any evidence of hacking or other attempts that affected the vote. But Hillary’s attorney said they had no “actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” So she can pretend to remain on the high road and let Stein do the dirty work of speculation and unfounded accusations. This is the Hillary we know.

If this petition were an appeal in a court trial, the court would dismiss it summarily. It is all speculation and conjecture.

The election boards in these states should dismiss these unfounded petitions.

As an aside, this should teach Trump to not be so quick to suggest that he may not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary’s email and foundation scandals. Trump said he does not want to hurt Hillary. But Hillary sure wants to hurt Trump to overturn the election results.

Now, Black Guns Matter

Murder is big business in Philadelphia. Last year, 280 corpses went to the morgue, as murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Law enforcement struggles to contain ethnically-based crime syndicates: an Italian-American crime family, an Irish mob (the K&A Gang), a Jewish mafia, a Greek mob, a Russian mob, the Kielbasa Posse (Polish), the Jamaican Posse, the black mafia, the Latin Kings, the Warlocks Motorcycle Club, the Pagans Motorcycle Club and Sex/Money/Murda.

It’s a mess, but one man is trying to make a difference… in the most unusual way. His name is Maj Toure and he is 30 years old. Maj has organized a movement called Black Guns Matter. It isn’t affiliated with Black Lives Matter.

Maj Toure believes that education and information leading to legal gun ownership and a stronger culture of concealed carry will make more of a difference in urban America than deliberate attempts to restrict citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights. Making legal guns more difficult to own simply penalizes and criminalizes the people who need protection the most. The disconnect, he feels, is with lawmakers, and the constituency needs to reconnect.“The government works for the people,” says Maj Toure. “We do not work for them. I think we have to get back to that. You don’t tell us what to do. We tell you what to do. We’re your constituents. We’re your base. We’re the people that elect you into office and if you can’t follow through with what we’re doing, you got to go.” Maj has founded Black Guns Matter and is taking his message to inner city communities to promote gun education, ownership and concealed carry.

Maj is a gun owner and NRA member and he wants to replace gun regulations, gun buybacks and anti-gun rhetoric with firearms training, education and concealed carry permits. In short, he’s our kind of man. With no outside support, Maj has taken his beliefs on a 13-city inner-city tour, complete with free firearms training by certified instructors.

And what does he believe? That the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to American citizenship.

“Charlton Heston said it — you basically got to pry this out of my cold, dead hand. I’m not going down that way because we are citizens, Americans,” Toure says, bluntly. “We have the right to exercise the 2nd Amendment and anyone that’s trying to infringe on that is not only in violation of the Constitution, but they’re also just a dick.”

Maj believes there is a deliberate attempt to mislead people “in the hood,” a deliberate effort to prevent them from owning guns. The preaching and political rhetoric that correlate increased regulation with increased safety is nothing more than political bait and switch.

“Gun control is a sham. It’s not about gun control. It’s about people control,” he said. “It’s about trying to convince people that somehow the government is going to be responsible for your safety. That’s the equivalent of saying, ‘Hey, we have fires. Take all of the fire extinguishers out of your home because if there’s a fire, the firemen will just come.’ No, we’re not doing it.”

Do you like this guy, yet? I do.

The well-publicized “gun buybacks” that politicians love are a sham, Maj says: “Gun buybacks just help the community feel a little bit safer but that doesn’t help. Feeling and facts are two different things.”

What does help, he says, is education and information.

“What we’re doing at Black Guns Matter is going into the grimiest places. I’m from North Philly which is always in the top whatever for murder. Going into those neighborhoods and saying, ‘Hey, single mother of three that gets off at four in the morning, this is how you secure a firearm safely so you can still feel safe in your home and at the same time one of your children that’s five years old doesn’t get a hold of that firearm and harm themselves.’”

Toure believes, “Everybody in the hood should have a firearm because they’re citizens and that’s their 2nd Amendment right. They’re not prohibited people; they go to work every day.”

Toure understands the illegal segment of the gun owning population too, and the risk they take for their own version of the 2nd Amendment. He holds them up to be among the safest in the gun community out of a need for self-preservation. He equates them to those who drive without a license.

“They’re running a risk every time they get in their car just to feed their family, just to pay bills. They are the safest drivers that I know,” he says. “They stop at every stop sign. They stop at every red light. They are 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock, looking left, right, left. That’s because they’ve trained themselves to be safer because they’re notthe bad guy. I think that when you create something that’s illegal and just based on what you think it should be as opposed to not factoring the peoples’ needs and responses, of course they’re going to be the bad guys in your eyes because they are technically doing something illegal.”

Learn more about Maj Toure on Facebook.com and in several online interviews. “Education, information and proper training are what help. Ignoring it, trying to put the guns away, acting like this isn’t the case, pretending like this isn’t a serious issue, none of that shit helps. None of it helps. What we’re doing is what’s helping.”

There’s trouble brewing in Lincoln, Nebraska where students at a public school were told they could not fly the American flag – because it might spark some sort of post-election backlash.

Several of my astute readers sent me a link to a story in the pages of the Lincoln Journal Star titled, “Safety concerns prompt school to ask students to not fly flags.”

On Veterans Day someone had pulled Old Glory off a flagpole on a students’ pickup truck at The Career Academy. It’s unclear who was responsible for desecrating the flag, but the owner of the truck was concerned about a “potentially disruptive climate.”

The school district said that prompted the school’s administrators to “review the situation and make a determination that there would be potential for continued disruption.”

The Journal Star reported that administrators asked students not to fly the flag “out of an abundance of caution.”

Although, they did say they would “consider letting students fly the flags on another appropriate day, such as Presidents Day,” the newspaper reported.

As you might imagine, the flag ban did not go over very well in Lincoln – home to many God-loving patriots.

“We have heard from many students, families and community members who were concerned about taking away those rights,” the district said.

The outrage prompted the school district to hold a press conference on Nov. 17 to retract the ban and apologize.

“We want to make this very clear: Lincoln Public Schools students are free to fly their flags on their cars, and leave the flags on their vehicles during the school day,” the district said in a prepared statement.

They also reminded the general public of their patriotic bona fides – from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to promoting Veterans Day.

“LPS believes in the teaching of the tenets of the Constitution and all it represents,” they stated.

“Hindsight would suggest that this could have been handled in a different way and we are amending our original decision,” the district said. “We respect the right for students to display their flags. We should not have asked our students to remove them.”

The district went on to say their flag ban “could easily and understandably have been misinterpreted as infringing on the rights of freedom of expression and speech.”

There was no misinterpretation — because it was an infringement – a shameful infringement.

Instead of cracking down on American patriotism, how about cracking down on people who desecrate the American flag? How about more discipline and less capitulation? Is that too much to ask from a public school these days?

Then again, this is the same school district that had a problem with teachers calling children boys and girls. They wanted the teachers to use more gender inclusive language.

I wonder what the gender inclusive word for stupid is – because there’s a whole mess of it in the public education system.